(PER CURIAM.) Keystone Airpark Authority appeals the trial court’s award of attorneys’ fees to Passero Associates based on Keystone not accepting Passero’s proposal for settlement and following the entry of a summary judgment in favor of Passero. See Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c). Keystone asserts that the attorneys’ fees award must be reversed because the release upon which Passero’s proposal for settlement was conditioned lacked the required particularity for the “relevant conditions” and “all nonmonetary terms of the proposal.” Fla. R. Civ. P. 1.442(c)(2)(C)-(D).

The release language at issue, while broad and expansive, does not impermissibly encompass “causes of action that may accrue in the future based on unrelated facts and events that have not yet occurred.” See Ambeca, Inc. v. Marina Cove Village Townhome Ass’n, Inc., 880 So. 2d 811, 812 (Fla. 1st DCA 2004). Likewise, the release language describing the parties to be discharged is not so expansive that it lacks sufficient particularity to inform Keystone of the affiliated parties who would be governed by the release. See Bd. of Trs. of Fla. Atlantic Univ. v. Bowman, 853 So. 2d 507 (Fla. 4th DCA 2003). Accordingly, the order on appeal is

The materials available at this website are for informational purposes only and not for the purpose of providing legal advice. You should contact your attorney to obtain advice with respect to any particular issue or problem. Use of and access to this Website or any of the e-mail links contained within the site do not create an attorney-client relationship between Abbey, Adams, Byelick & Mueller, L.L.P. and the user or browser. The opinions expressed at or through this site are the opinions of the individual author and may not reflect the opinions of the firm or any individual attorney.